list_education_articles
List all Education Center articles with titles, categories, and URLs.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
OKC Disc & Sciatica Next-Step Checker | Precision Care Chiropractic
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a read-only listing operation and the response contents (titles, categories, URLs). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or errors, but for a zero-parameter list operation the core behavior is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no redundancy or filler. The action, target, and output fields are all front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned. The main missing context is when to choose this over the search/get siblings, but that is primarily a usage-guideline gap; the tool's own scope is described well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the empty schema already fully defines the calling contract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('Education Center articles'), and specifies the returned attributes ('titles, categories, and URLs'). The word 'all' distinguishes this from the 'search' and 'get' sibling tools, making the tool's role unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_education_articles or get_education_article. The word 'all' implies broad listing is intended, but the description never states alternatives or conditions, so an agent has no direct decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
assess_next_step and run_sciatica_information_check are nearly indistinguishable: both accept lower-back/sciatica symptoms, screen for red flags, and return next-step information. The three education-article tools and clinic-info tool are distinct, but the main symptom-checking surface is ambiguous.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like get_clinic_info, list_education_articles, and search_education_articles. However, assess_next_step and run_sciatica_information_check use inconsistent, verbose verbs and don't share a clear checker-naming convention.
Tool Count4/5
Six tools is a reasonable size for a server combining clinic information, education content, and patient next-step screening. The count isn't excessive, though one of the two overlapping checker tools could be removed without losing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The set covers clinic details, education article retrieval/list/search, and symptom-based next-step screening, which matches the server's stated purpose. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit appointment scheduling or separate urgent-care action—but the core workflow is workable.